Give me something juicy

  • ageedizzle@piefed.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Right, I agree with you (my only quibble is that we do technically have evidence for IIT; it just isn’t definitive).

    I misunderstood the guy in my first comment. At this point I know he isn’t defending IIT. All I’m saying is that IIT has legitimized a theory that once seemed crazy (panpsychism). It’s conceivable to me that something similar could happen with idealism, because not a single scientist or academic philosopher alive has any idea whats going on with consciousness. And when we dismiss ideas like idealism, we are implicitly assuming that we have some grasp of what’s going on, but we don’t.

    Edit: just to clarify, in this particular comment chain I am defending IIT in particular

    • Redacted@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Agreed, we can’t even rigorously define consciousness, so to claim it’s the only thing that exists is a stretch too far for me.

      Panpsychism is interesting but gonna need a lot more evidence including an explanation of the Combination Problem before I’m convinced.

      • ageedizzle@piefed.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        explanation of the Combination Problem

        Yeah, honestly this might be a fatal issue. I know proponents of IIT say they have an explanation for this to do with causal powers of information or whatever, but I’m not sure if I’m convinced of IIT for other reasons.

        There is a really interesting thesis that was written on the combination problem in relation to split-brain experiments. I’m still not sure if I’m totally convinced but it’s definitely an interesting read if you’re into this stuff!